Change to draft order process

I can't find the links to the articles I've read recently on this but I'll give the jist of it. (Article is in post #4).

I've read in a number of places that the draft order might be re-worked in new CBA to give rebuilding teams an opportunity to improve with 2 first round draft picks. The NBAPA seems to favour such a change from what I recall.

1-14 would be selected the same as it currently is.

15-28 would be based on record.

Playoff teams would get 2 second round picks based on record 29-45, 45-61.

What do you think?

As a Raptors fan it would be great right now, but how would you feel if you were a Lakers fan. Or how would you feel if the Raptors were a playoff team?

Since I spent the morning talking about why we still need to weight the lottery, I thought I’d also touch on one of the union’s other proposals, which could be implemented for the 2012 draft if we get a settlement.

Back in June, the union brought up the idea of giving lottery teams additional picks, Henry Abbott, who is also very much on board the “owners and management who are bad at their job should be punished not rewarded” wagon, thought that it wouldn’t hurt the other teams, or the league, but the fans. No, really.

"You know who’d get the short end of that stick? The third party known as the fans, specifically the fans of teams that just simply don’t know how to build a winner. More good draft picks would be a way for the worst GMs and owners to compete without getting any better at their jobs. This is like performance-enhancing drugs for the worst front offices in the league.

As fans, we root for the great competitors, right? Those who do best at their jobs? I’d argue the league ought to encourage teams similarly. If the Clippers didn’t have Blake Griffin walking through that door, as a reward for losing, wouldn’t Donald Sterling have to do some soul-searching about how he runs his team, and maybe come up with a more competitive approach?" {quotation marks added}

via Bribing bad teams with more picks – TrueHoop Blog – ESPN.

Well, for starters, I’m of the opinion that as fans, we root for teams. Ask a Royals fan if he’d be angry if the Royals won a World Series because David Glass is a terrible owner, or if Bengals fans would be mad if they won a Super Bowl because Mike Brown is the devil. Would Clippers fans be throwing their championship DVDs in a flaming pile next year if Blake Griffin becomes the best basketball player on Earth and the Clippers miraculously win a title? No. They’re just going to be happy that they got to see their team win a title.

The other problem is that there’s an idea that if you win, you must be good at your job. Show of hands, who thought before this season that Michael Heisley and Chris Wallace were good at their jobs? Anyone? Anyone? Oh, and Orlando. Otis Smith traded for Rashard Lewis, knowing that it was far too much in the sign-and-trade, was building around Hedo Turkoglu and hoping Jameer Nelson would become an All-Star (and he did! Kind of.). But the Magic won, so it was perceived they were run well. Now? Not run well. Difference? Two years and converting bad contracts into worse contracts. The Knicks traded everything including 30 percent of the Statue of Liberty to Denver (they actually own the torch). They started Jared Jeffries. They made the playoffs.

In short, a lot of this stuff is completely and totally random. So why would loading up on draft picks for terrible things help things? Because it makes the hole not so deep for teams that can dig themselves out while not necessarily rewarding the truly terrible. One of the biggest problems is that teams have to make it through rebuilding processes and because they don’t want to suffer the horror of a true rebuilding year until it’s absolutely necessary, teams will enter purgatory, sticking with marginal contracts to get a few wins which end up being expensive in terms of moving forward and don’t help them. But they don’t have the talent to get by. But multiple picks gets them out of this. It means that if a team drafts well, they’re not trying to suffer through a painful year, but going forward aggressively. And if that team elects not to go completely young, they can trade the secondary pick for better players. It just means that the hole isn’t quite so deep to get back to contention. Younger, better teams. Fans like those, right? Especially on, you know, their teams?

But what about rewarding those terrible owners like Herb Simon, Dan Gilbert, and Michael Jordan instead of icons of purity like Mark Cuban, Micky Arison, Jerry Buss, and James Dolan?

Here’s a question. Let’s say you don’t live in the state of Minnesota. And let’s say you concur with the vast majority of the known universe that if there’s a way David Kahn can find to screw up a decision, it’s 80% likely that he will. Do you feel that with an extra pick that David Kahn will magically be able to win a title? Or instead, will he do something like, oh, I don’t know, draft two point guards back to back, one of which won’t come over for two years and the other will be a complete bust and he’ll hire a coach whose system specifically limits the impact of the point guard? Oooor, will he do something like draft a combo forward when he’s already made two trades to acquire combo forwards?

How about the Bobcats? They’ve been pretty terrible at the draft (until this year, am I right Biyombo-Cult?). But wasn’t part of the reason they kept trading picks for players was because all the players they drafted were busts? The question here is if you honestly think that the draft isn’t a complete crapshoot a decent percentage of the time. Sean May? 2005 NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player. Averaged a double-double. Emeka Okafor? Part of the reason for the Hornets’ resurgence. Adam Morrison? Naismith Award winner, USPBWA POY award winner, averaged 20 points per game. I’m not saying you don’t have to project how they’ll adapt to the pro game, saying sometimes it’s impossible, and that if the misses hadn’t destroyed the Bobcats’ chances so much, maybe they wouldn’t have put themselves in the equivalent of a $20k credit card hole.

The Cavaliers are looking at another painful year working with Kyrie Irving and incorporating Tristan Thompson while trying to liquidate the rest of their roster. Another pick, and they’re more easily able to drop their dead weight and can move back towards contention, if they use the players correctly. That’s the key here. You can draft all the players you want, you still have to be able to use them correctly.

The multiple-pick lottery is unlikely to get moved on. The owners are only really interested right now in anything they can suck pennies from. The idea doesn’t fix the BRI split or help with making sure owners can’t lose money. But it’s an interesting idea and one that deserves further consideration than it will warrant in a league-fanbase that continually moves towards the idea of punishing a team that goes through a losing season, despite the idea that every franchise, no matter how well run, eventually goes through one.

I would be very much in support of this for many of the reasons above.

I don't really care about rewarding or punishing teams, I think the draft change idea is better for fans. Fans who are interested in their team are more likely to spend money on that team. Young and exciting teams draw crowds as do winning teams. Teams stuck in purgatory (12-14, 7th/8th seeds) will continue to be stuck there with this change or without, in my opinion.

Also, what about the teams who fire bad management and bring in change only to leave an eager fan base waiting for a few more years/seasons to become competitive? 4-5 years between playoff appearances is dreadful for a fan base with the exception of the hard core.

Another reason would be financially. If the 1-28 picks were all guaranteed money, as first round draft picks currently are, then playoff teams would not have to add a player to their roster who might end up rounding out the third string and eat up cap space that might be better suited to adding a veteran on a minimum contract. Also, teams that with good scouting - or luck - will find the diamonds in the rough in the second round that they always do.

For the drafted players in the second half of the first round they might actually have an opportunity to crack the rotation and show they belong. The difference in Jordan Crawford when traded from ATL to WSH immediately comes to mind as a player who would get an opportunity to develop on a weaker team and hopefully make the weaker team better sooner.

It also gives rebuilding teams more assets and options. 2 first round picks could be packaged for one high lottery pick, another player, the second pick could be used for 2 2nd round picks, 4 and 15 could be swapped for 2 and 23, etc. etc.

In the end, there is a real element of luck in drafting - not only in positioning but also in team chemistry, the system one is drafted in to, health, teaching potential and choices teams ahead make.

Frankly I love the idea, if only because it will be incredibly interesting to see how it unfolds. 14 teams could land anything from 2 superstars (however unlikely) to 2 busts, and in a loaded draft no less. As a fan of both the game and of a lottery team, I'm salivating.

That being said, I think it would also be incredibly interesting if the playoff teams each got two second rounders.

Frankly I love the idea, if only because it will be incredibly interesting to see how it unfolds. 14 teams could land anything from 2 superstars (however unlikely) to 2 busts, and in a loaded draft no less. As a fan of both the game and of a lottery team, I'm salivating.

That being said, I think it would also be incredibly interesting if the playoff teams each got two second rounders.

I would love the idea as a Raps fan (although I'd like to see the Raps get a hand on a top 3 pick), but it is completely unfair to other teams.

-teams that just made the playoffs and are still rebuilding get screwed
-some teams will be 2 years removed from their better players as it is (if there is no season next year Boston may have missed its window)
-there is 0 precedent for doing it this way

I'm willing to bet if the season is missed, the NBA pulls a NHL after the lockout style draft.

I would love the idea as a Raps fan (although I'd like to see the Raps get a hand on a top 3 pick), but it is completely unfair to other teams.

-teams that just made the playoffs and are still rebuilding get screwed
-some teams will be 2 years removed from their better players as it is (if there is no season next year Boston may have missed its window)
-there is 0 precedent for doing it this way

I'm willing to bet if the season is missed, the NBA pulls a NHL after the lockout style draft.

"-teams that just made the playoffs and are still rebuilding get screwed"

How much do picks 15-19 really help a still rebuilding playoff team? Some do, no doubt - but most don't, at least not initially. A rebuilding playoff team usually continues their rebuild with more development of the talent they already have (how much did Aldrich help the Thunder last season or Larry Sanders help Milwaukee or James Anderson help SA or Xavier Henry help MEM? In a few seasons those players might develop in to contributors but would a young borderline playoff team be better served having an additional $2M to acquire veteran/experienced players or another young player? Would a team have just as much chance of getting a quality player in the 15-19 range as drafting 2 players in the 28-33 and 45-50 range? Also, there is nothing preventing playoff teams from trading any combination of second round picks, future picks, or players for a first round pick.

"-some teams will be 2 years removed from their better players as it is (if there is no season next year Boston may have missed its window)"

And if they have and the season is lost they will still most likely be picking late first round and late second round - again the difference would be a mid-late first round pick versus an early-mid 2nd round pick. A team like Chicago waited 10 years to become a contender and required getting lucky in going from 9-1 to get Rose. Would 4 years of 2 first round draft picks restore them to relevancy sooner?

"-there is 0 precedent for doing it this way"

Not really an issue. There was a time when there was zero precedent for high school players being drafted in the early first round. Change shouldn't be avoided merely because something has not been tried before. There has never been a hardcap in the NBA

I am not for this at all, how about just getting the salary cap in place and enforced and allowing teams to have better control over keeping their draft picks long term.

How long?

Teams currently have players for 4 years and the ability to match any offer. If the player truly does not want to stay with a team they can forfeit an extension and play out the qualifying offer for a total of 5 seasons.

The Cavs and Raps has LBJ and Bosh for 7 years.

The Bobcats and the KNicks had Felton and Lee for 5 years.

At what point or how long should it take for a player to have the right to free agency?

"-teams that just made the playoffs and are still rebuilding get screwed"

How much do picks 15-19 really help a still rebuilding playoff team? Some do, no doubt - but most don't, at least not initially. A rebuilding playoff team usually continues their rebuild with more development of the talent they already have (how much did Aldrich help the Thunder last season or Larry Sanders help Milwaukee or James Anderson help SA or Xavier Henry help MEM? In a few seasons those players might develop in to contributors but would a young borderline playoff team be better served having an additional $2M to acquire veteran/experienced players or another young player? Would a team have just as much chance of getting a quality player in the 15-19 range as drafting 2 players in the 28-33 and 45-50 range? Also, there is nothing preventing playoff teams from trading any combination of second round picks, future picks, or players for a first round pick.

"-some teams will be 2 years removed from their better players as it is (if there is no season next year Boston may have missed its window)"

And if they have and the season is lost they will still most likely be picking late first round and late second round - again the difference would be a mid-late first round pick versus an early-mid 2nd round pick. A team like Chicago waited 10 years to become a contender and required getting lucky in going from 9-1 to get Rose. Would 4 years of 2 first round draft picks restore them to relevancy sooner?

"-there is 0 precedent for doing it this way"

Not really an issue. There was a time when there was zero precedent for high school players being drafted in the early first round. Change shouldn't be avoided merely because something has not been tried before. There has never been a hardcap in the NBA

Keep in mind this is a proposal of the NBAPA.

If we are going to make the argument (paraphrasing here) that 'picks 15-29 aren't that good anyways' ... then why make the change in the first place?

Again, the main issue here is one of fairness. A team already gets (technically) punished for being 'good' by drafting lower. A change in the draft like that would more or less doubles that punishment. Don't forget some of those teams that made the playoffs were the 'best of the bad'.

I see absolutely no reason to change a major function of one of the few systems in professional sports that is actually working.

If we are going to make the argument (paraphrasing here) that 'picks 15-29 aren't that good anyways' ... then why make the change in the first place?

Again, the main issue here is one of fairness. A team already gets (technically) punished for being 'good' by drafting lower. A change in the draft like that would more or less doubles that punishment. Don't forget some of those teams that made the playoffs were the 'best of the bad'.

I see absolutely no reason to change a major function of one of the few systems in professional sports that is actually working.

Good point. To clarify it would be more of increasing odds of getting a quality player in the draft process. Also the paraphrasing is not quite accurate from my argument: it is not the players 15-19 or 15-29 are not good rather it is a question of how much 1st, 2nd , or even 3rd year players contribute to a playoff team's success - my guess would be not much. During that time would they better served getting more of an opportunity to play and grow with a weaker team or sitting on the bench of a playoff team?

The flip side to the argument of fairness would be asking how fair it is for fans of teams not in the playoffs to have to struggle through many years of a rebuild while better prospects go to teams only to sit on the bench struggling to get more than scrap minutes.

This is only my opinion but given the number of late first round draft picks that get traded I think playoff teams would rather not have guaranteed contracts tied up to what are usually bench warmers.

The flip side to the argument of fairness would be asking how fair it is for fans of teams not in the playoffs to have to struggle through many years of a rebuild while better prospects go to teams only to sit on the bench struggling to get more than scrap minutes

just as fair as it was for the fans of the now good teams to have to sit through a rebuild.

And while some of the better teams may not want those guaranteed contracts, they are few and far between. Even if we assume said pick would sit on the bench, the salary cost of late picks is not much and usually much better value than a vet player who would sit in his seat instead. Plus there is more long term potential from that player for the team, and that pick (or player) is also a trade chip. It is still an asset.

All teams should be given the opportunity to stay highly competitive for the long term and that should be a function of good decision making. Changing the draft so that 'worse' teams get better quicker, and better teams get worse quicker, I do not think is the right approach. It rewards poor decision making and punishes good choices.

Teams currently have players for 4 years and the ability to match any offer. If the player truly does not want to stay with a team they can forfeit an extension and play out the qualifying offer for a total of 5 seasons.

The Cavs and Raps has LBJ and Bosh for 7 years.

The Bobcats and the KNicks had Felton and Lee for 5 years.

At what point or how long should it take for a player to have the right to free agency?

It is not about locking in players so that they can't leave for years and years, but making the salary cap more stringent and allowing all teams a more equal footing when building a team. I think a hard cap is the way to go, I don't care how much the owners make, they are the ones that take the risk in putting up money to own the team, players make more than enough and should be super happy with the pay scale. The other thing that could help teams is better control of players in a minor league system, right now rosters can't be more than 15 player and you can only send players down to the D league in their first 2 or 3 years. I think adding another round to the draft and allowing for the signing of 2 way contracts or ones with minor league clauses would help the teams overall as well.

just as fair as it was for the fans of the now good teams to have to sit through a rebuild.

And while some of the better teams may not want those guaranteed contracts, they are few and far between. Even if we assume said pick would sit on the bench, the salary cost of late picks is not much and usually much better value than a vet player who would sit in his seat instead. Plus there is more long term potential from that player for the team, and that pick (or player) is also a trade chip. It is still an asset.

All teams should be given the opportunity to stay highly competitive for the long term and that should be a function of good decision making. Changing the draft so that 'worse' teams get better quicker, and better teams get worse quicker, I do not think is the right approach. It rewards poor decision making and punishes good choices.

I don't think there is any right or wrong in this debate rather perspective.

Rewarding poor teams and poor decisions is addressed in the article in post #4.

The goal of any team is to get a couple of core pieces to build around, grow with those players, and find other to compliment them. Looking at the top teams of the last 5 years (Lakers, Dallas, Nuggets, Spurs, Celtics, Cavs {before this year}, Suns {before this year}) very few have drafted a player that has stepped in and been a rotational player once they were a playoff team (Spurs had Hill, Suns had Lopez) because they already had their core players and 'team' in place - that is why they are good year in and year out.

Again this is all perspective but I do not perceive this to be a punishment for playoff teams given the use of first round draft picks by upper echelon teams of the last 5-6 seasons. The number of late first round draft picks sold or traded would question the idea of playoff teams wanting the guaranteed contracts of first round draft picks.

I do agree it could certainly hurt the borderline playoff teams or those stuck in purgatory, however, wouldn't it be poor decision making that got them in that position initially? Might the prospect of two guaranteed first round draft picks help them start a rebuild rather than get stuck on the mediocrity treadmill - especially if trading a good player returns another draft pick(s). Is the goal to win and compete for a championship each year or to get knocked out of the playoffs in the first round each year? The article in post #4 discusses this:

One of the biggest problems is that teams have to make it through rebuilding processes and because they don’t want to suffer the horror of a true rebuilding year until it’s absolutely necessary, teams will enter purgatory, sticking with marginal contracts to get a few wins which end up being expensive in terms of moving forward and don’t help them. But they don’t have the talent to get by. But multiple picks gets them out of this. It means that if a team drafts well, they’re not trying to suffer through a painful year, but going forward aggressively. And if that team elects not to go completely young, they can trade the secondary pick for better players. It just means that the hole isn’t quite so deep to get back to contention.

There are two major benefits to this - and again only my perception and opinion:

1) it could help create a very competitive league (16-18 really good teams versus current 10-12 really good teams),
2) fans of losing teams can have an extra prayer or hope.

Regardless of the draft system, poorly managed teams are not going to be very good regardless of draft system and well managed teams will do well.

This is interesting. The biggest benefit would be an increase in parity. Basically if you had one season where you had the worst record and got a top three and the 15th pick (two down from where we got Ed) you're already on your way.
Examples where this would have been rediculous:
-In '04, someone could have gotten Dwight Howard (1st) and Josh Smith (17th).
-In '05, Derron Williams (3) and Danny Granger (17)
-In '06, Brandon Roy (6) and Rojon Rondo (21)
The list goes on. At the very least this would make watching rebuilding teams more fun. One thing I would be worried about is tanking. This would give teams even more of a reason to try to have the worst record. I'd like to see how it worked in practice.

"When Life gives you lemons, you clone those Lemons to make super lemons!"
-Scudworth

This is interesting. The biggest benefit would be an increase in parity. Basically if you had one season where you had the worst record and got a top three and the 15th pick (two down from where we got Ed) you're already on your way.
Examples where this would have been rediculous:
-In '04, someone could have gotten Dwight Howard (1st) and Josh Smith (17th).
-In '05, Derron Williams (3) and Danny Granger (17)
-In '06, Brandon Roy (6) and Rojon Rondo (21)
The list goes on. At the very least this would make watching rebuilding teams more fun. One thing I would be worried about is tanking. This would give teams even more of a reason to try to have the worst record. I'd like to see how it worked in practice.

That is along the lines of what I was thinking.

I think the worst case scenario would be similar to the NFL (not talking draft, talking season play). The well run teams with very good talent would be perennial contenders. Then every year you'd have teams competing who might disappear the next year due to an injury or whatever but fans would still have an entertaining team to cheer and know they have a chance next year.

Another scenario to consider might be the NBA when the league was smaller. Each team had 2-3 current or near all-stars and games were more games were competitive.

This is interesting. The biggest benefit would be an increase in parity. Basically if you had one season where you had the worst record and got a top three and the 15th pick (two down from where we got Ed) you're already on your way.
Examples where this would have been rediculous:
-In '04, someone could have gotten Dwight Howard (1st) and Josh Smith (17th).
-In '05, Derron Williams (3) and Danny Granger (17)
-In '06, Brandon Roy (6) and Rojon Rondo (21)
The list goes on. At the very least this would make watching rebuilding teams more fun. One thing I would be worried about is tanking. This would give teams even more of a reason to try to have the worst record. I'd like to see how it worked in practice.

I actually don't agree it will create parity... the issue with 'parity' in this league has had nothing to do with a teams capactiy to draft, but rather with finances (and geography). While teams will theoritically not be "as bad" for "as long", you will still have numerous teams intentionally losing for extended periods of time so they can horde picks.

What you will have is a lot of short term flucuation in the good and bad teams, but it won't lead to parity.